Many are bi, so for them it’s a choice on whether or not to act on it. So they project that it’s a choice for everyone. And the gays are choosing it because they’re lustful or sinful or weak or whatever.
No objections… Germany doesn’t have secularization written in the constitution. And it’s common knowledge that both aren’t properly separated by law. Or anything else.
Most religion is introduced to children. Children don’t have a reliable way to distinguish fact from fiction. Think about how kids with really shitty abusive parents still idolize them, they don’t know any better.
It sounds like you learned critical reasoning at some point in your education, but not everybody does. Many people just accept or reject ideas based on what their community believes, or what others might think of them, or other reasons, but NOT due to their own sovereign critical thought or judgement. Many people don’t form their own unique opinions. These people are religious.
So, it’s not really an opinion, it’s a belief. It’s a form of trust. Like you trust that so many other people you know and respect can’t possibly be wrong about this thing. In the same way you can trust a partner not to cheat. That’s not an opinion, it’s faith. You believe it and you don’t really want to consider an alternative, because it undermines your community support network.
It would be an opinion if religion was presented to an adult capable of critical thinking. There wouldn’t be very many religious people if that was the case, I think.
Although, if I want to explain that I think that religious beliefs should be subject to the same scrutiny and criticism as opinions how would I put into words that religion should not be put on a pedestal the way it is currently done often times?
I don’t think there’s any way to reach devoutly religious but telling them the thing they hold sacred, the thing that ties together their family and community, is nothing more than a mass delusion. You can’t tell them that religion is an opinion because to them, god is above all.
The only way I can imagine is by providing a viable alternative. Many religious people think atheists are incapable of morality. Lost without god, poor unfortunate souls. It might help if atheists were more open and vocal. But that’s just the problem - nobody is preaching about nothing. Nobody is preaching about just being a good person for no reason other than you want to. Atheists and non-religious should easily have a majority in many places but actually have almost no representation in government.
I got this Scientology recruitment pamphlet in the mail. Most of the precepts make sense to me, except 9 (don’t break the law), and 18 (respect others religions). But I think the religious are more likely to change religions than walk away from it entirely.
Anyway I’ve never received an atheist pamphlet. It doesn’t really need recruitment because it’s self-evident. Imagine going door to door trying to sell nothing. Not just nothing but try to tell people not to buy anything from anybody else. Kind of a hard sell.
Many religious people think atheists are incapable of morality
Some but not all.
Jesus has the parable of the good Samaritan for example. The religious man (The Pharisees) leaves someone on the mountain to die, while the less-religious Samaritan saves him.
In fact, a lot of Jesus’s preachings are about the outsider. Ex: Magi were likely Zoroastrianism, etc. Etc.
There are many warnings about how Religion can be used for bad in Catholic preaching. Ironically, Evangelicals ignore these parts of the Bible.
We preach to our kids that Religion is a choice. Above all else, it is the choice to believe in the mysteries (by definition unprovable) issues of faith.
But what you believe isn’t a choice. You can not consciously choose to believe anything, you can only be convinced to believe or convinced, coerced, forced,… to pretend to believe but your actual belief is not under your conscious control.
Catholics believe it to be a choice because we believe in free will, among other things. And we choose to believe in free will as a gift from God.
At which point the argument becomes circular, therefore a choice. You can choose whatever now
your actual belief is not under your conscious control.
People seem to choose to join, or leave, our religion on a regular basis. So as a matter of practicality… I’ve seen people choose and change their beliefs.
As I explained to others on this subject: do you believe that others can manipulate your opinion? If so, you can use those same techniques to manipulate yourself in the mirror. That’s your choice as well.
Even if you are a helpless sheep, you have the advantages of psychological research today to manipulate yourself into choosing your beliefs through simple psychology and mirrors.
Of course people’s opinions and beliefs can change. You just can’t decide to change them. You can obviously e.g. decide to learn more about a subject and as a result of that action your beliefs change but you can not just decide to change what you believe any more than you could decide to grow taller or to have your fingers fall off.
You’ve never convinced someone else to change their opinion?
And have you never looked in the mirror to do the same to change your own opinion?
It’s simple psychology. Not even religion. Arguments aren’t always the most convincing, that’s why we have other words (ex gaslighting) where psychological tricks are used to change someone’s beliefs even outside of facts.
Just… Do that. To yourself. Done. There are numerous documented psychological tricks and operations you can do to people.
Yes, I have gotten myself to change my opinion. Many times, actually. I usually am confronted with an opinion I have by someone or something. Then I question the validity of that opinion, do some research, find out stuff I didn’t know and form a new opinion based on the information I just acquired. That happens frequently.
What doesn’t happen is this: “I think electric motors are more energy efficient. Hold on, no, never mind, now I think that combustion engines are more energy efficient.” That’s not how opinions or beliefs work.
The only way for you to form a new belief or opinion is via new knowledge and information. Why would your beliefs and opinions change, when the information they are based on doesn’t?
Catholics believe that fundamental issues of Faith are unprovable by logic.
You’ve made the choice not to believe in a matter of faith without proof. I have decided to believe despite no proof and a well understanding that there never will be proof.
Sorry, but all my alarm bells are ringing when I read this. It sounds like something you would say if you don’t want to admit to indoctrinating your kids.
I really don’t see a preacher give a disclaimer like “Just FYI: You don’t have to believe a word I’m about to say. There’s no actual evidence for anything I’ll tell you. It’s actually partially disproven. We still believe it, though. But, again, just because all of us here believe it, doesn’t mean you have to. Of course we all want you to believe it too. Your parents brought you here for a reason but feel free to not believe us. Totally fine.”
Come on, as if. Furthermore, do you really think that young children would understand what you mean? I doubt you would have a non-believer come in and explain their beliefs and how the world actually works and have your children pick, right? Also, do you really think that a kid who is put in a room by the people they trust most, their parents, and is told stuff that everyone there, including their parents, agrees with would get what you mean with “choice”? No, they just follow their parents’ example.
Obviously I don’t know you and if you actually explain to your kids how the world works as proven by science and assure them that your religious beliefs are purely spiritual, that’s cool I guess. I know for a fact, though, that people who do that are a minority so little that they’re statistically insignificant.
Catholics are ‘two truths’, see St. Thomas Aquinas. Science is one path to truth. God and faith are another. If both are true, then any (seeming) contradiction must be a human error, a misunderstanding that deeper study (either of faith or of science) will eventually reveal the truth and let both sides agree again.
Science has a large component of Catholicism actually. The Catholic monk Mendel discovered genetics and Catholics officially are cool with evolution. (Of course, specific people may disagree but there have been a lot of… Evangelicals… Who seemed to have joined in recent years pushing us to some braindead perspectives).
Nonetheless, the ‘Mysteries’ of Catholic faith, such as the Virgin Birth, the existence of God, etc. Etc. Are all unprovable and unfalsifiable. Given the nature of the core of our faith, it can only be described as a choice.
There is no proof, no logic, no argument to the core issues. It’s simply if you believe or if you don’t believe.
Nope. Opinion is simply the wrong word. The best English term for what a religion is, is probably belief system. Belief and opinion aren’t entirely synonymous - opinions have a much stronger notion of personal judgement (i.e. how tings should be) - but more importantly a religion isn’t just a belief, it’s a huge set including many beliefs that do - more or less - fit together. Hence it’s a system.
In German we also also use the word “Weltanschauung” (literally translates to worldview but fits a religion better than the English word).
So you can’t just compare the entire religion to an opinon about, let’s say whether or not school lunches should include bacon. But you can compare individual opinions and beliefs held by religious people to those of people without imaginary friends. A Christian’s opinion on abortion may be influenced by their religion but there’s a lot of denominations that are pro choice. Hence a Christian being against abortion is indeed just voicing a opinion.
On the other side, there definitely are non-religious belief systems. Humanism for example.
My local FB group has this horrendous edgelord troll that uses “Weltan schauung” as their name. I’m not convinced that it’s not a paid troll. I’ve seen multiple accounts using the exact same picture for their profile. It’s a picture of a sunset.
I agree that ‘opinion’ is a bad term, but ‘belief system’, while wildly used, is hiding its true nature, which believers do not want to and often cannot confront because of the high cognitive dissonance it would cause. I think there is no one word to accurately describe it. My attempt to put it in one sentence is: a shared delusion by indoctrination that fills a mental space that people have varying degrees of natural predisposition for.
All of the parts are important and all of them contradict the ‘just another opinion’ stance.
Shared: because religion and/or belief is inherently irrational, it helps if a lot of people or at least a significant portion of a person’s community have the ‘same’ beliefs because it gives them perceived validity.
Indoctrination: to achieve the previous point, it is important to instill the beliefs in children, so ‘optimally’ they are perceived as natural and not questioned.
Natural predisposition: there’s plenty of evidence, that there are specific regions in the brain which are active in believers, when they pray or partake in rituals. No matter the religion. This can also be true for people who are not part of any formal religion, but ‘tap into’ this spiritual part of the brain by meditation or other personal means. Then again, there are people where these regions are ‘dead’/not there. And as always with humans: it is a spectrum.
Delusional: the ‘core tenet’ of belief is the acceptance of certain statements at face value against any amount of contradicting information, which is enabled by all the previous points.
So, how does this contrast with opinions? Anybody can have or form an opinion on anything. For any given subject there is a set of information for which a subset is available to an individual. This subset gets sorted, weighted, and filtered based on individual acquired discriminators. Those discriminators can come from all sorts of stuff, including education and religion. The available information as well as the sorting, weighting, and filtering can change over time and lead an individual to drastically reform their opinions. That is less likely (figuratively impossible) with a belief.
So, while it is possible to have religiously ‘informed’ opinions, they are very different in their nature from beliefs. And the word ‘belief system’ does not deny, but hides the mechanics that diferentiates opinions from beliefs.
Yeah, “an opinion” is poorly chosen phrasing. Obviously, it’s lots and lots of opinions. Should’ve chosen my words better.
Next time the topic comes up, do you think it would be better if I said that religious beliefs are a huge set of opinions that form a person’s core beliefs and that these opinions and as a result the beliefs should be subject to scrutiny and criticism, just like non-religious opinions and beliefs? Is that phrased better or still “wrong” but put into different words?
Next time the topic comes up, do you think it would be better if I said that religious beliefs are a huge set of opinions that form a person’s core beliefs and that these opinions and as a result the beliefs should be subject to scrutiny and criticism, just like non-religious opinions and beliefs? Is that phrased better or still “wrong” but put into different words?
Absolutely. That makes much easier to find fair comparisions. After all not all religous beliefs are held deeply and many non religious people have beliefs that are incredibly important to them. E.g. the no alcohol ruls in Islam isn’t especially well adhered to among Muslism in Western countries wheras your average atheist vegan will go ballistic if you try to make them eat pork.
I see religion as more of a set of opinions since it covers more than one single thing. A set of opinions typically are the building blocks for culture.
I read the other comments (at 2h after this post) and they go into some philosophical waters. I’ll just offer the pithy response that people rarely die for opinions. I think that demonstrates the value that people place upon religious ideas, whether right or wrong. Essentially, your friend is telling you that this opinion means so much more to them to the point that it’s in a different category. I can understand that.
I don’t think religion serves us well, but others do and they’ll fight and die for it. I wouldn’t die over which form of electronic music is best, but drum and bass is certainly a contender in my mind. That’s my opinion.
First of all, D&B is awesome. I’ll try to find a smooth way to drop Fox Stevenson’s name here (although he kinda went a different direction a while back but it still slaps imo).
Anyways, yeah, that is a pretty good point. It’s a weird thing. Another person mentioned in a comment that spirituality lights up special parts of the brain which may have to do with what you’re saying. This is a real tough one to figure out
A charlatan misrepresented a scientific study to claim that a woman’s egg lights up when the sperm fertilizes it as an argument that conception is divine (hence, anti-abortion). That’s the first thing I thought of in relation to spirituality lighting the brain.
Well, the first religions in the history of humanity were a huge step forward, from basically nothing to a basic sense of culture and identity.
That said, most religions are thousands of years old, and we have updated our knowledge and wisdom since. Clinging to religion nowadays, to me, is just braindead.
Edit: but old customs hardly die, so there’s that.
I dont think so. Faith is something different from having formed an opinion if someone really believes. It is why I cannot change my opinion if there exists a god or not: The belief is just not there. No amount of convincing will change that.
I’ve actually witnessed multiple people who became believers after years of atheism. I’ve also seen people lose their faith. I think that religious beliefs are usually just really tough but not impossible to change, just like some opinions
atheism
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.